Ask Antonio (Almost) Anything

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What do you think my politics are?

Is that a trick question? From what I've seen of you, I'll go with "postmodern technocratic liberalism", but there might be other labels that fit better.

I was wondering if your answer would be really distorted.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What do you think my politics are?

Is that a trick question? From what I've seen of you, I'll go with "postmodern technocratic liberalism", but there might be other labels that fit better.

I was wondering if your answer would be really distorted.

Distorted from what, exactly?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Do you still feel positively about Matteo Renzi?

[Sumner 1868]

Can you vote in Italy if you wanted?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What do you think my politics are?

Is that a trick question? From what I've seen of you, I'll go with "postmodern technocratic liberalism", but there might be other labels that fit better.

I was wondering if your answer would be really distorted.

Distorted from what, exactly?

Reality. What else?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Do you still feel positively about Matteo Renzi?

Not really, no. I still think he's probably the least dire realistic option available in Italy right now, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Can you vote in Italy if you wanted?

I can and I have. I've never missed an election there (to my own shame, I did miss a few in France).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump now that I'm done with classes and have more time to answer questions.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Would you describe humanity, collectively, would it be as a garbagecan, or a trashcan?

[DavidB.]

Do you regret any of your votes, and if so, why?

[Vosem]

What do you think my politics are?

Is that a trick question? From what I've seen of you, I'll go with "postmodern technocratic liberalism", but there might be other labels that fit better.

I don't really care about omegascarlet, but I've seen you use the word postmodern in other contexts as well, and (much like "neoliberalism", which -- while your definition of it was reasonable and illuminates your other writings rather than obscuring your meaning -- tends to have a lot of meanings and is often used vaguely in a manner meant to obscure rather than illuminate what the author is discussing) I'm interested in knowing what exactly you mean by it.

Does technocratic refer to having a close relationship with corporations (especially "high tech", Silicon Valley-esque corporations), pursuing policies that these corporations would like, or something else entirely?

Some other questions that have come to mind:

While I know you don't have a very positive opinion of Jean-Luc Melenchon and La France insoumise, what do you think about other upstart populist-left movements in Europe, especially Podemos? How instructive for understanding these movements do you think is the experience that SYRIZA had upon reaching power?

Are you at all interested in Latin America? Any particular countries in that part of the world you take interest in?

Assume the feasibility of constitutional amendments is not an issue. How would you propose to reform the American electoral system? Do you think the current system suffers from a democratic deficit?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Would you describe humanity, collectively, would it be as a garbagecan, or a trashcan?

This is an oddly phrased question, but I think I get the gist of it. Anyway, if you want to go down that road, I will say that a trashcan/garbacecan, just like any other container, is only ever as good or bad as what's put into it. So instead of complaining about how humanity stinks, I'd rather ask myself who put all this trash into it.

Do you regret any of your votes, and if so, why?

I voted for Hollande. Do I even need to elaborate?

Apart from that, I don't think there is any other vote I regret. Some of them were quite painful to cast (ex: FBM last May) but I still would cast them again in hindsight.

I don't really care about omegascarlet, but I've seen you use the word postmodern in other contexts as well, and (much like "neoliberalism", which -- while your definition of it was reasonable and illuminates your other writings rather than obscuring your meaning -- tends to have a lot of meanings and is often used vaguely in a manner meant to obscure rather than illuminate what the author is discussing) I'm interested in knowing what exactly you mean by it.

To be honest, I haven't given nearly as much thought to postmodernism than I have neoliberalism, so I won't defend my use of the word here if you take issue with it. I'm happy to be educated more on the significance of postmodernism as a current of thought. In this case, I was using it to describe a vague attitude, increasingly prevalent in social discourse, that seems intent on challenging any and every social norm for the sake of it (as opposed to challenging specific social norms for their injustice). I often see it take the form of an unspoken implication that if something is a "social construct" then it's inherently worthless. I was applying it to Scarlet because of her attitudes on things such as abortion (dismissing the idea that a woman might be legitimately attached to their fetus) or incest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nah, that would be "plutocratic".

I've always taken "technocratic" as referring to an approach to politics that values technical expertise as the prime criterion for the selection of political leaders, and "efficiency" (however defined) as the prime criterion for the arbitration of policy choices. This, of course, comes at the expense of criteria based on normative values and a vision of a better society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am somewhat skeptical of some aspects of these movements, but must recognize that they play a salutary role in challenging the European status quo from an authentically left-wing position - and, as such, constitute a critical line of defense against the assaults of both neoliberalism and xenophobic right-populism. Podemos is the case I'm most familiar with, and it strikes me as fairly emblematic of the broader family. It has provided a much-needed challenge to the pro-austerity consensus in Spain, and its continued strength is indispensable to the constitution of a left-wing alternative of government. At the same time, its intransigence during the coalition talks with PSOE has dashed the hopes of kicking out Rajoy in 2015 and condemned the left to political impotence in the short term. Right now, I would be more inclined to support Sanchez' PSOE (at least if he is truly sincere in championing the policies he won the leadership election with). But again, PSOE and Podemos will have to cooperate in some form if they want to achieve anything of importance.

The experience of SYRIZA is deeply troubling to me, and I have more questions than answers on why it took the turn that it did. I do realize that Tsipras' leeway was severely limited given the political and economic situation Greece had found itself into, but I can't deny that he made mistakes and could have played his cards much better. Still, I'd rather not cry over spilled milk and focus on what we can learn from it going forward. The main lesson to me is that left-wing change will only come to the EU through a large or a relatively economically healthy (though not necessarily both) country.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are quite a few Latin American countries whose politics I find very interesting, yes - the first that come to mind are Brazil, Uruguay and Chile. Sadly, I haven't found much time to follow their politics as closely as I'd like to (especially during such a busy year for the US and Europe!), but I try to keep up at least a little. Since I don't have much background knowledge on these places, I usually try to ask people who seem more knowledgeable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To answer the last question, yes, absolutely. I have long thought so for a very long time, but two classes I've taken recently have made me realize that the issues run far deeper than I suspected. If you're interested, this book is the best summary for what the problem is. In a nutshell, the US political system places unattainable demands on its citizens in terms of knowledge, attention, and ability to hold coherent preferences. Since they can't meet these demands, they end up incapable of exerting any meaningful control over policy choices, and a small group of organized interests (on both sides, really - you can argue that applies to some unions) can easily assert such control.

Achen and Bartels don't provide a meaningful solution to the problem they identify, though. If anything, they almost end up embracing the elitism of American democracy, which is of course utterly unacceptable to me. Instead, I'd argue that democracy can be made to work if it can leverage the power of group identity and belonging - in essence, providing an institutional framework for "identity politics". This requires several measures: first, PR as a voting system; second, political parties that are clearly identified with a cohesive sociological group, and whose leaders share the interests and values of their members; third, an institutional framework that guarantees that the influence/strength of each group is determined only by the number of their members and nothing else (this implies a complete ban on private funding of politics in any form). If these criteria are met, then it is my belief that democracy can work. Of course, nowhere are they fully met, but some countries come much closer to this ideal than others.

[Kringla Heimsins]

Do you believe in Free Will and/or personal responsibility, or in social conditioning?

Also, where are you from in France?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Do you believe in Free Will and/or personal responsibility, or in social conditioning?

Very interesting question! The short answer is that I believe in both.

I am (despite everything) enough of a rationalist to believe that reality can be understood as a continual succession of causes and consequences, so that if someone could fully grasp all the relevant factors, they would be able to predict with perfect accuracy whether a future event would occur or not. I think this includes human decisions. Indeed, knowing some basic things about people (such as their gender, age, class etc) helps us make reasonable guesses about how they might act.

At the same time, however, this succession of causes and consequences is far too complex for anyone to ever come close to forming a complete picture of it. The number of factors that come into play in almost any process, let alone one as mysterious as people's individual choices, is almost infinite, and the slightest deviation in a parameter may lead to dramatically different outcomes. In fact, the idea that a human being could fully understand human decision-making strikes me as a logical impossibility: if someone did, then he/she would be able to perfectly predict his/her own behavior, and therefore become a sort of stranger to him/herself.

Being able to observe cause and consequence requires us to have an individual perspective, which in turn requires that we view ourselves as, for all intents and purposes, capable of independent thought. Thus, as empirically founded as determinism can be, a fully deterministic perspective collapses under the weight of its own logic. "Free will", as murky and artificial a concept as it might be, is a necessary condition for any reflection on humanity. I like to think of it as "true from a certain point of view," just like it's true that, from a terrestrial perspective, the sun rises and falls under the horizon, even though an outside observer would say this makes no sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've lived most of my life in the Western suburbs of Paris, where my family still lives. We also have ties to Savoie.

[Kringla Heimsins]

Thanks for the detailed answer!

Btw, Parisian suburbs are trash.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I am (despite everything) enough of a rationalist to believe that reality can be understood as a continual succession of causes and consequences, so that if someone could fully grasp all the relevant factors, they would be able to predict with perfect accuracy whether a future event would occur or not. I think this includes human decisions. Indeed, knowing some basic things about people (such as their gender, age, class etc) helps us make reasonable guesses about how they might act.

At the same time, however, this succession of causes and consequences is far too complex for anyone to ever come close to forming a complete picture of it. The number of factors that come into play in almost any process, let alone one as mysterious as people's individual choices, is almost infinite, and the slightest deviation in a parameter may lead to dramatically different outcomes. In fact, the idea that a human being could fully understand human decision-making strikes me as a logical impossibility: if someone did, then he/she would be able to perfectly predict his/her own behavior, and therefore become a sort of stranger to him/herself.

Being able to observe cause and consequence requires us to have an individual perspective, which in turn requires that we view ourselves as, for all intents and purposes, capable of independent thought. Thus, as empirically founded as determinism can be, a fully deterministic perspective collapses under the weight of its own logic. "Free will", as murky and artificial a concept as it might be, is a necessary condition for any reflection on humanity. I like to think of it as "true from a certain point of view," just like it's true that, from a terrestrial perspective, the sun rises and falls under the horizon, even though an outside observer would say this makes no sense.

This, particularly the first two sentences, is generally my stance.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Btw, Parisian suburbs are trash.

I don't feel like sh*tting on them too much since I've lived in them for 17 years of my life and have enjoyed a good deal of comfort there, but yeah, they're not my thing at all.

This, particularly the first two sentences, is generally my stance.

The last two paragraphs hold more sway in terms of my practical approach to things, but I'm glad we're in substantial agreement!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Which was preferable? The Third Republic or the Fourth Republic?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Which was preferable? The Third Republic or the Fourth Republic?

Looking strictly at institutional design, the Fourth Republic would probably be my favorite French political regime (although the April 1946 constitution would have been even better). However, a multitude of contextual factors (cold war politics, decolonization, the fact that every party was either a destructive extremist or a useless moderate hero, etc.) turned it into a complete disaster. By contrast, the Third Republic spearheaded one of the longest eras of sustained social, political and cultural progress in French (if not European) history, and deserves credit for enshrining the legacy of the French Revolution that much of society had never accepted. It too started going bad after WW1 (for many of the reasons that plagued the Fourth), but the 1876-1914 period still more than makes up for that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

July Monarchy vs Second Empire?

[Antonio the Sixth]

July Monarchy vs Second Empire?

Ugh, that's a hard one... I'm tempted to go for the Second Empire because Napoleon III was generally a far more competent ruler and the Bonapartist cult is generally less vile than French monarchism, but the Second Empire was also much more clearly authoritarian (at least for most of its time) and it ended in complete disaster. My heart says Second Empire, my mind says July Monarchy.

[°Leprechaun]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Because if there were nothing rather than something, then there would be no one to ask why there is something rather than nothing.

[°Leprechaun]

Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side?

I actually don't know that many such songs.